Monad
wrote:

Do you know of any philosophy as true based on
solutions or proofs? **

Yes, those philosophies are based on scientific solutions or rules (laws),
they are the crowns of what they are based on. This crowns
can and should be criticised; many of them exist only because of personal
credit, regard, publicity. Science is already partly enslaved. So what
can we do in order to prevent that this all increases more and more, so
that the end effect will be merely stupidity, absurdity, dementia,
and ignorance?

You
are against statistics, science, philosophy, and that is okay, but I also think
that it is too much against. And the fact that you are a member of
this philosophy forum and write posts on philosophy indicates that some of your
statements are contradicted by some of your statements.

Monad
wrote:

Inserting solutions and proofs into philosophy
as if it were math or science usually destroys the conversation or one must know
in what sense it can be applied, its limitations in short as applied to philosophy.
**

I don't think that it destroys the conversation, because
philosophy is not merely a conversation. One should know in what
sense it can be applied, its limitations in short as applied to philosophy.
We are human beings - fortunately or unfortunately -, so we have no choice,
if we want to know, to recognise, to philosophise, to be wise.

1321

Moreno
wrote:

I am saying that the act of stating what heathens
should do is odd. Why? Stating what all members of my group X should do is rather
Abrahamic to me. Like I should tell all pagans how to live their lives and how
they should struggle for freedom. LIke I can make that kind of rule. And a rule
about what they should do. Which is even more resrictive than a rule about what
they should not do, at least in many cases, since it compells towards a specific
life.

I am not saying that being a heathen is like being a monotheist/Abrahamist.
**

Ah,
okay. So you don't unite them. That's okay. Else you would try to unite fire and
water.

Moreno wrote:

It is that act
of laying out what should be done that seems more Abrahamic than heathen to me.
My objection works on the assumption that these groups are different. **

Oh,
yes, they are! They are very much different, more different than all others from
each other!

Why did so many heathens became monotheists? What was the
success of the missionaries?

1.) Chosen people in the case of the Judaism?
2.) Salvation (especially by Jesus) in the case of the Christendom / Christianity?
3.) Capture / conquest and power by war in the case of the Islam / Mussulmans
/ Mussulmen?

Will also many monotheists become heathens? And without missionaries?

1.)
?2.) ?3.) ?

1322

Maybe there will be such struggles, battles, wars between US(SR), EU(SSR)
on the one side and Russia, India, China on the other side or in a different
constellation or even with other nations or empires. But do nations or
empires still play that role they played in the past? And who always wins
in nihilistic (modern) times? Not nations or empires.

1323

Moreno
wrote:

That is probably the reason why they can not be as successful as the
former missionaries were. Maybe that is also the reason why some heathens
of this forum (I don't mean you and some others) don't answer my questions,
because they are no real but marketed, merchandised heathens. Nonetheless
I appreciate their reservation, but with a mere reservation they can not
so easiliy become more as they would, if they were less reserved, less
distant. But probably there is no other way, if an honest religion is
exercised. However: a marketed heathen seems to be similar to -
for example - a marketed hippie, or a marketed punk, or
a marketed rapper.

Have you get this 33 fundamentals
from (a) your computer experiments, or (b) other experiments, or (c) no experiments?

Do
you know any native american?

1328

Monad
wrote:

The upshot being, a criticism of anything does
NOT imply a negation! One can criticize, analyze in a hundred different ways depending
on »perspective« and how its discussed. It all depends on how and
in what manner references are made. Is this not also one of the main functions
of philosophy? as a kind of »Perspectivism« a la Nietzsche?
**

It
is especially what I said among others in this post: Reference is in no other
realm of science as important as in linguistics. Reference is important. And philosophy
has very much to do with language, thus with linguistics (ask Nietzsche, if you
can).

Against,
against - that belongs to you, not to me. Nietzsche would have
disagreed with you too, because he was both a philologist (cp. linguistics) and
a philosopher.

Moreno
wrote:

Or
it will be without history (**|**)
as it was more than 6000 years ago.

1330

Communism have killed the most people of all time. Please don't forget
that. Egalitarianism is a homicidal system like all other kinds of totalitarianism,
and they all fail at last at the fact that they don't work.

Uccisore wrote:

Christian Philosopher often means »politically radicalized
heretic«, and philosopher who happens to be a Christian tends
to be a lot more grounded.. **

Then come to Europe where it is different, especially in Germany.

1331

James
S. Saint wrote:

But that turned out to be just too much
for a small PC unless you are a serious expert programmer with the right support
files (which I didn't have). So I tried for a while to see if there was a way
to get the program to make video files where you could see the actual video motion,
but without the video support files, the whole thing became just way, way to convoluted
and slow to be of any realistic good. **

Video!
When was it?

James S. Saint wrote:

I
feel like Einstein having to invent and prove the oscilloscope merely to explain
his relativity theory. **

But
your theory is different from his theory.

1332

Phyllo
wrote:

Thanks.

Phyllo
wrote:

Depends on what you mean by fun. I don't discuss
werewolves, vampires or Brangelina. Unsupported claims about IQ are not fun because
people believe that stuff and then vast quantities of time have to be wasted trying
to correct a bunch of misinformation. **

It
was about the interim balances between (and actually you know that). The claims
about the IQ are supported! but you don't want them to be supported. That's your
problem, not mine. I can specify many sources and statistics, but you won't accept
them. That's your problem, not mine. A much greater danger is the fact that people
believe in opposite nonsense and in the silly Flynn effect and other
nonsense and misinformation, including yours.

Phyllo wrote:

Morality
and ethics is fun. Science and tech is fun when people understand it and when
they twist it in a clever way. **

And
you don't like fun. Stop pushing the people in front.

Phyllo
wrote:

In general, I find fun to be easier (and more
enjoyable) in real life because body language and tone of voice adds so much richness
to the discussion. Wittiness, irony, satire, playfulness, etc, don't work well
in forums. **

So why you are writing here, especially in this thread? Why dont
you go out of the house in order to enjoy the forest?

Enjoy the sun, Phyllo! I wish you
much fun!

1333

Monad
wrote:

Whatever you like! This thread no-longer holds
any interest for me. **

What
a bummer! What a pity! Cant I keep you here?

But okay: Whatever
you like!

Regards.

1334

Phyllo
wrote:

You haven't specified sources or statistics, and you dont
like statistics!
I dont have to specify sources or statistics for you because (a)
you cant read the sources (they are not in English), (b) you dont
like sources and statistics, (c) you dont take the thread
seriously at all:

Phyllo wrote:

Why
you are writing here in this thread, Phyllo?

Phyllo wrote:

In
general, I find fun to be easier (and more enjoyable) in real life because body
language and tone of voice adds so much richness to the discussion. Wittiness,
irony, satire, playfulness, etc, don't work well in forums. **

So
again: Why are you writing here, especially in this thread, Phyllo? Why
don't you leave the house in order to enjoy the forest?

Do you know Phyllo?
He has also no interest in this thread, although he is writing more and more in
this thread.

Why don't you both search for another thread?

Do
you know what pharisee means?

Monad wrote:

I
am positive on IQ testing. It is partly right that there are some flaws
in the method, but the statement that intelligence is not measurable at all is
wrong. The correct measurement of intelligence depends very much on the statistics
and on the long-term measurement.

B.t.w.: Your sources are
full of egalitarian(istic) rhetoric.

You and Phyllo are against
the IQ because you are following the communistic mainstream. That's dangerous.

IN
US (the new USSR) and EU (EUSSR) communism and socialism
are already installed:

Please
search for another thread, because you both are saying that you are not interested
in this thread, whilst you are writing more an more in this thread!

1336

Questions
can't be wrong!

So:

Will machines completely replace all
human beings?

1337

Ierrellus
wrote:

A major event in the evolution of the human brain
came when the brain achieved a certain level that allowed self-consciousness.
It achieved an »I«. **

What
do you mean with I? Intelligence?

1338

James
S. Saint wrote:

Phyllo wrote:

»Lev
Muishkin wrote:

I'm in What a stupid meaningless question«
column, and I bet so are most of the rest of no.

I
posted to clear up a misrepresentation of the movie »Robocop« and
I ended up in »no«. I'm actually in the »silly nonsense - not
worth discussing« column.

You both appear to be in
the »too naive to discuss such a subject« column.

That
is absolutely right.One could also call it the Stupid meaningless
answercolumn, or the Dsiagreement without any argument
column, or the I don't like this thread because I write in this thread
column.

Questions
can't be stupid or wrong, but answers can be very stupid and wrong.

They
all are writing more and more in this thread, although they don't like this thread.

Why are you writing in this thread? You
don't like this thread. So why should I respond to your query?

Phyllo
wrote:

That are also your words. So your Silly nonsense - not worth
discussing column can also be called the Stupid meaningless
answer column, or the Dsiagreement without any argument
column, or the I don't like this thread because I write in
this thread column.

It's
all about this thread, and you don't like this thread, you don't take the
thread seriously at all (see above). So again: Why are you writing in this
thread?

Phyllo
wrote:

James S. Saint wrote:

»Phyllo
is one of our better Zero credit snipers. He just pops in to quickly
tell you that you are wrong about something (throw a stone) then darts back into
the shadows, never giving credit when you are right about anything (that would
require courage).« **

You
complain that I come in and leave. He complains that I'm not leaving. **

No,
you complain that we complain, thus: for you it's all about the poster
and not the posts, not the thread, and not the topic of this thread and its OP.

You
don't have to leave, but I wonder, why you are writing in this thread, although
you are saying that you don't like this thread, don't take the thread seriously
at all:

And in their most supreme arrogance they
became the very architects of their own demise ....

Well
done, Tyler.

1345

James
S. Saint wrote:

Arminius,There
have been, and still are many who come to this site merely to attack people, not
ideas. They have an excuse for not being able to distinguish toilet paper from
nose tissue, people from ideas, maps from terrains, ontologies from realities,
religion from science, or logic from speculation. It is largely associated with
too much mother and not enough father along with serious neurological diseases
throughout the West causing their heads to be too far up their asses to see the
light, or distinguish shit from shinola. **

And
merely attacking people is neither intelligent nor human (in a good sense).

1346

James
S. Saint wrote:

But that turned out to be just too much
for a small PC unless you are a serious expert programmer with the right support
files (which I didn't have). So I tried for a while to see if there was a way
to get the program to make video files where you could see the actual video motion,
but without the video support files, the whole thing became just way, way to convoluted
and slow to be of any realistic good.

.... I was attempting that project
maybe 8 months ago or so. But I never got to produce the video because of insufficient
tools. I found myself going through ridiculous extremes to do the simplest of
tasks involved (like having to create my own video encoder).

If I had
been asked for a unified field theory during the 1980's, I would guess that it
would have taken maybe 2 months to come up with the answer. But when it came to
verification and demonstration, although I might have put together some software
for that, I would have very probably just designed a different kind of computer
processor such that the essential functions were a part of the hardware (my specialty
at the time). That would have taken maybe a few weeks and produced a cube of metaspace
running at least 1000 times faster. And that would allow for much greater convenience
in experimenting with varied field strengths and particle behaviors. And I might
have even gone the more serious route and used analog processing in critical areas,
giving it probably another 1000 times faster response time (when it comes to the
fundamentals involved in reality, digital is horrendously slow).

But either
way, the issue would still have been one of producing visual confirmation and
communication for sake of others. Producing a video of the various experiments
would still have been a major issue because it isn't an issue of making a film
that portrays or simulates the events, but rather a video of an emulation taking
place in real time. And a video file would have been even harder to produce back
then and would have slowed the processing down tremendously (tempting me to do
even that part in firmware).

Interestingly, even though everything thinks
in terms of how computing has advanced so much, in many ways, it has receded.
That same project would probably take me years to develop and a great deal more
money. Today, I feel pretty much like I am having to figure out how to build a
space shuttle out of used car parts. The tools and resources don't match the need.

Arminius
wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

I
feel like Einstein having to invent and prove the oscilloscope merely to explain
his relativity theory. **

That's
the point. When you are revolutionizing a field, the old tools don't fit the new
needs. RM:AO isn't another evolutionary step in science. It is a revolutionary
restart of science. And when the theory must be proven, it often takes inventing
the new tools. And that can easily take much longer and perhaps totally different
talents than the theory is all about. RM:AO has very little to do with creating
video encoders and advanced processors. But those things are needed as tools merely
to demonstrate the much simpler theory and the greatly complex association between
the theory and all of the questions that people have concerning anything new.
**

The appropriate computers were missing during
the 1980's and the matching videos were missing 8 months ago
or so. Is that right?

Creating Video Encoders and advanced processors
are indeed needed as tools »to demonstrate the much simpler theory and the
greatly complex association between the theory and all of the questions that people
have concerning anything new.

So RM:AO is a metaphysical (particulary
ontological) theory with physical basics but also with a never produced video
because of insufficient tools. Is that right?

If
so, how can you or we overcome that dilemma?

1347

Tyler
Durden wrote:

The future is a slow motion train wreck
and we're just edging our way always closer to it. **

Train
wreck .... That reminds me of this:

Arminius wrote:

Here
comes the text of Jethro Tull's »Locomotive Breath«:

»In
the shuffling madness // Of the locomotive breath, // Runs the all-time loser,
// Headlong to his death. // He feels the piston scraping - // Steam breaking
on his brow - // Old Charley stole the handle and // The train won't stop going
- // No way to slow down. // He sees his children jumping off // At the stations
- one by one. // His woman and his best friend - // In bed and having fun. //
He's crawling down the corridor // On his hands and knees - // Old Charlie stole
the handle and // The train won't stop going - // No way to slow down. // He hears
the silence howling - // Catches angels as they fall. // And the all-time winner
// Has got him by the balls. // He picks up Gideon's Bible - // Open at page one
- // (I said) God (he) stole the handle and // The train won't stop going - //
No way to slow down.« ****

Will
we be able to prevent our own train wreck?

1348

Tyler
Durden wrote:

If all else fails hopefully the imposed
physical limitations of nature will put an end to humanity's collective madness.
**

See global peak energy for reference on that.

Tyler Durden wrote:

I think
human beings are best subservient living under nature instead of trying to dominate
it. **

But then they wouldn't and couldn't be the people they want to be. And
I don't think that their rulers will give up that claim. Mereley the mass
of the human beings would agree to live under nature instead of
trying to dominate it, if these human beings are wanted to agree,
and also because of such an agreementt, they will be endangered by replacement.
So the really meaning of their living under nature in the
future is their disappearance. What remains is the question,
whether their rulers will later disappear as well or not.

Tyler
Durden wrote:

No matter what happens a lot of people
are going to die. It's necessary and unavoidable. **

Is
that really necessary and unavoidable? Do you not have any hope?

1349

James
S. Saint:

Arminius wrote:

»The
appropriate computer were missing during the 1980's and the matching
videos were missing 8 months ago or so. Is that right?« ****

The point was that in 1979-80, I designed the fastest, low
power, low cost 32 bit processor in the world, using techniques that were unheard
of at that time. Later I found those same ideas being put in high speed 32 and
64 bit micro-processors (not that they stole them from me because I'm sure they
were bright enough to think of such things themselves). I was an intelligence
designer and throwing together a new type of processor was nothing to me, just
about could do it in my sleep. So when I needed something to be fast, I would
just design it into the hardware, making it a 1000 times faster than using software
for the same task. And I had the contacts and resources at that time to build
just about anything. The issue was that no one had asked me anything about a unified
field theory for physics, so like most younger guys, when I wasn't drifting around,
I was getting tossed around. The shadow government was taking over in my area
so businesses were popping up and failing rather regularly.

Then
in the mid to late 80's, I could see how to cause a processor system to become
just as emotional as any person. And after thinking about that for a while, it
dawned on me that the whole trend to make computers so smart, was a really bad
idea. The smarter we made machines, the dumber we made people. So by the early
90's I was switching from computer intelligence over to human intelligence. And
then retired around 1995.

It wasn't until around 2004 or so that I thought
about the fundamental properties of physical existence. Now and then I would put
a little more thought into it and just a few years ago, I decided to play with
trying to get a computer to emulate the fundamental properties. That wasn't easy
to do because digital computers just don't get along with analog reality and science
and math were designed around a different understanding anyway. But eventually
I figured a way to use a small single-bit processor and my little PC to generate
those first pics above.

Then I developed things a little more and realized
that I really had a true unified field theory and even more, a »Grand Unified
Theory« because the fundamental principles of reality actually apply to
literally all things, without exception as long as it is done right. That is when
I developed Rational Metaphysics and also Affectance Ontology and became a »metaphysicist«.

But
where I am at now is without any resources or energy to do what I used to do and
passing the understanding on to someone else is more important than having a computer
model for it. But even to do that, requires communication and video does that
with this kind of thing a lot better than words. And right now, I don't have the
proper video support files with which to generate good videos showing the details
that need to be seen in order to show all of the connections between RM:AO and
contemporary physics.

To me, RM:AO is beyond being merely a theory, because
not only do I understand the logic, but have seen the computer demonstration for
very many complicated results and also have allowed people to try to come up with
any possible flaw in the logic and no one has. There is really nothing left to
guess about because it is all about necessary logic, not derived from presumption
or observation, but pure logic.

So online, I can talk about it, but until
someone can see the program and results for themselves, they can't know without
question how real it is. Even with a video, someone can fake it. I am really not
interested in anyone merely taking my word for anything (despite the accusations).
I don't even talk to those kind of people. I am interested in people who have
enough confidence in themselves and can follow the logic, scrutinizing every detail.
I am not the »Cult Leader« that people like to accuse me of being.
Although RM really is a revolution in science and thus would actually lead to
a new culture of thinking (»cult« is just short for »culture«).
If people don't change to it, the androids will. And I know that they will (I
know how they think). They are designed to be smarter than people even though
currently programmed with merely contemporary science ideas. The androids will
learn and leave people far behind really quickly.

So the most important
thing at this point is to relay to someone of a logical mind and serious self-confidence,
every detail concerning the fundamental understanding and its significance. Videos
would help with that a lot, but they are not the objective in themselves. The
point is to get RM:AO understood very thoroughly. It IS the future science. As
Neo said in The Matrix film, »I don't know the future. I did not come here
to tell you how this is all going to end. I came here to tell you how it is going
to begin.« None of the world's problems right now are actually necessary.
Not one. Not terrorism, economics, disease, radiation, not even the problem of
having no problems.

Arminius wrote:

»Creating
Video encoders and advanced processors are indeed needed as tools to demonstrate
the much simpler theory and the greatly complex association between the theory
and all of the questions that people have concerning anything new.«
****

The videos are only needed for communication. Advanced processors
are not so much needed, but a larger system is. To emulate an orbiting electron,
from only the fundamentals, requires a huge amount of memory. Once that demonstration
is made, much smaller models can be made to replace already known clustered activities
within the metaspace (greatly reducing the required memory). At that point, larger
molecules can be formed that necessarily behave exactly as any real molecule.
And I don't even have to know how the molecule is supposed to behave. The system
would show me. After that, all of Chemistry is just an issue of pushing a few
buttons. No chemical labs. No billion dollar particle colliders. Thousands of
dollars replace billions of dollars. **

Arminius
wrote:

Got any suggestions?

Not at the moment,
James. I will soon read more of your theory.

It is also a question whether
my theory fits with your theory.

Arminius wrote:

My
theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.

The
orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around their stars,
and even the stars around their galactic center clearly do not describe circles
or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center
of our galaxy, the Earth spirally orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits
the Earth. For bodies that move around bodies, which also move around bodies,
do not move two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also cyclically,
more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something moves around a body
or a point which does not move around another body or point and is not moved in
a different way by external forces, then (and only then) can this (and only this)
motion be two-dimensional. ****

Arminius
wrote:

My whole (natural and cultural) theory is based on spiral-cyclic
motions - almost all changes and developments, also all evolution and
history. ****

1350

James
S. Saint wrote:

From the perspective
of a management android, humans are merely in the way, and a serious risk.
**

That is a very rational thought, and androids are created because of
rational thoughts, so referring to this the creators and designers of
androids have the same thoughts.

1351

Ierrellus
wrote:

Others have hinted at the same thing--machines
cannot be self aware in the human sense of self-awareness. This does not indicate
that I see all forms of awareness as human. You are sounding like Lev.Can
machines experience free will? **

Humans
have no free will, but only a relative free will.

Those people who claim that the nachines can't have self-awareness should
be expected to prove, to adduce evidence, at least more than those people
who claim the self awareness of the machines. The former in order to protect
people, especially those who claim the latter.

1352

Peter
Kropotkin wrote:

People make the mistake of thinking
what Stalin, Lenin and Mao for example was communism, whereas it had little or
no reality to what Marx wrote. Communism was a means for these people to gain
power which was the goal, not communism. They justified their actions via communism
but the truth was they were greedy power hungry murderers. **

Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were the greatest murderers of
all time.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

This
is why I say, Marxism has never been put into action anywhere in the world because
it hadn't. What we saw in the 20th century was Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism and
those systems had no interest in anything but power. So today when people say,
»Communism has failed«they are referring to something other then what
Marx envision and wrote about. **

Marx
was a Hegelian, a left Hegelian.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

Because Marx believed and wrote about a system that was a bottom
up system which means the power came from the bottom up. In Stalinism,
Leninism and Mao the system was top down, the power came from the top
then went down. **

That's right. But do you really believe in Marxism, that there will
once be a bottom up system? Do you believe in that? There
has never been existing any single example of a bottom up system
in societies with more than about 1000 people.

Tyler
Durden wrote:

Slightly
less than the human beings themselves since they murdered him. Remember: God has
been being dead since the end of the 18th century, at least in Europe and North
America. He was killed slowly.

R.I.P. or revival?

Regards.

1354

James
S. Saint wrote:

Phyllo wrote:

»I'm
happy that have found a confident and unafraid Arminius to talk with. May he give
you much credit in the future.« **

Yeah, always latching onto someone else. Until you find actual confidence
in yourself, you will have no value to anyone. And don't think it will
be long before Arminius tells you to go away (again). **

Phyllo
wrote:

Sorry, that was a hilarious typo.Should have
read:I'm happy that you have found a confident and unafraid Arminius to talk
with.

James
S. Saint wrote:

Ever heard the phrase, »Freudian
slip«?

Actually I already figured that you really meant something
different. I wasn't sure what, but what you said didn't fit your PROFILE at all
(I hate profilers, btw).

And I'm not putting stock in Arminius agreeing
or being confident enough for my taste. As you SHOULD know by now, I don't accept
anything but absolute certainty backup by reasoning. Of course you DON'T know
that, but let's not continue as to why.

The greater point is as Arminius
pointed out;

YOU and LEV AREN'T INTERESTED in this topic so why bother
with derailing it? **

Phyllo
wrote:

I asked for the evidence which supports an assertion
that he made in this thread. That's not derailing.

Then he got all presumptuous
and defensive and derailed his own thread.

Over to you OP.

Will
machines completely replace all human beings?

That's an typical example for Phyllos derailing!

He is not interested in this
thread, although he is writing more and more in this thread.

Unbelievable!

1355

James
S. Saint wrote:

Perhaps think of it this way, »Would
an android hire a human?«

Currently people are thinking in terms
of androids doing small mundane tasks, »pick up this, move that, ....«
But it is only natural that such tasks become far more complex, »build a
swimming pool in my yard«, »repair my car«, »repave my
driveway«.

If an android is tasked to build a house or a swimming
pool, it isn't likely to do all of the labor itself, but rather utilize a team,
especially if speed is an issue. So it contracts available subservient droids.

Would it dare trust any part of the labor or design details to a human?
Why risk that?

»Repave the highway from Florida to Los Angeles.«
Hire humans???? Hell no (federal ordinance).»Build a building in downtown
Chicago.« Hire humans???? Hell no (city ordinance).

The extremely
wealthy don't need an android to do mundane tasks, but rather the greater more
sophisticated tasks. Why would they hire humans either?

From the perspective
of a management android, humans are merely in the way, and a serious risk.
**

What
would you do, if an android hires andriods but not you because you are a risk
and in the way?

So Fuse gets the first award because he has answered
the fastest.

He is young, and so he is very responsive, Mags! Sorry, but you get
the second award.

Congratulations and thank you.

The first award:

Congratulations, Fuse.

1362

Obe wrote:

Tyler, moral relativity is deadly. Living on the edge in Germany may
not mean the same in the US of A. I have lived in Germany in the sixties,
and was on the high of bicycling through the Black Forest, and meeting
my friends in the bar in the evening, with a terrible case of weltschmertz,
which i retained to the present day. A draft was 25 pfenning, i lived
in Lintz, in a slager, and my best friend was a guy from rome, and another
guy from Australia. In the morning i went to my job in a fabrique, where
all i did was taking a mallet and trying to dislodge it from pipes,
where the pipes leaked out liqiuid glue? I did not know what i was doing
, but my German friends had a car and drove into Dusseldorf on weekends.
But had to take the train back on Sunday night.

Since i am one half Swabian, i figured i'd fit in, but my friend kept
referring to mutti, amd i felt kind of out of it.

There is no economic collapse, there is only the collapse of myself,
gtrying to project a state, where i will find brothers as bad off as
i am, and for that here i am , when i told You, i want to relate to
You i didn't do it entirely from an altruistic point of view, i see
myself as You, say thirty years ago. Total angst, total playacting.
That i have developed alternate personalities to deal with it, mo one
can blame me for, but by and by, my authenticity gleams through, and
i a comfortable with playing wittgenstein like games. It is dreadful
here, granted, but i knew FRIEND IN GERMANY, WHO FLIPPED , and had to
be re-patriated. I think, Snowden may not be at all comfortable in his
new surroundings, i suspect. Plese take care of Your self, and adhere
to Your most basic instincts of survival. as always, obe. **

Obe, what - exactly - is so dreadful in the US?

We are told nothing new about the U.S. except Friede, Freude,
Eierkuchen which means alles klar, alles recht
(all right), nothing has changed, as if there
were still the 1960s.

Please tell us more about the real situation in the US!

1363

Obe wrote:

Thank you, Obe.

Obe wrote:

Well, i will try. However, i have an inkling, that You guys
have a pretty good idea of the U.S. Situation .... **

Not all, some (including me) know quite enough about the U.S. situation.
But the rulers in Europe don't inform their people, and most
of the Europeans are not interested, because and although they are not
informed by their governments.

Obe wrote:

..., as it's fairly obvious from world reporting on the late
great recession, the plight of returning veterans who find themselves
having to wait inordinately for referrals to specialists to treat their
maladies, of gi's living on the streets near VA hospitals, strung out
on dope, not able to return to civilian life. Other things: the air
here is not at all like the sixties, to give You an example, when i
came to live here, gasoline cost per gallon was 15 cents, now it's almost
$5. A pack of cigs was 25c, now it's $5. First class stamps were 4c
now they are 50c. The same with rents and food.

The suicide rate in the military is very much larger then before,
and there is a foreboding of valuelessness as purchase price of products
rise, along with the cost of living.

Don't get me wrong, only segments of the populations feel this downward
trend, while the upper middle class has no apparent problems with any
of it. **

These segments of the population are not a few, because,
depending on the respectively definition of the word classes,
the percentage of the population of both the middle and the lower
class is generally more than 99%, and the percentage of the population
of the middle class is generally about 50%, that of the upper
middle class generally about 5%, so that generally about 94-99% of
the U.S. population may be affected. Because of the fact that some people
are more contended than other people, the percentage of discontended people
is - for eaxmple - about 47-50%.

Obe wrote:

As far as my take on living in the USA, it is anchored in a
sense of high resiliency of the population, much like Henry Miller describes
it in his novel "air conditioned nightmare. Still, people are able
to live the mix,of ghettos and areas of great wealth coexisting in a
geographical no man's land, and everybody tries to live under the idea
of a 'classless' society. In a sense it is classless, and that too,
is a catch 22, where that idea, also suffers when economic markers lower
the bar, where social interactions at times painfully drag on the cheering
thoughts of personal freedoms.

The collapse is nought, i don't quite see that, but what i see, is
more of the same, the hidden downtrodden, the homeless ghettos, the
high rate of crime, etc., it implies a societal chaos, that the US population
can absorb.

Recently, there has been a sharp upsurge of child molestation among
educators, and this is a veery sign of moral decay.

The way i see it, if it wasn't for the laxity of morality, (after
all isn't Sweden a good model for it?), dissent and societal unhappiness
would not have the safety valve of releasing at least on Freudian truth,
of civilization's discontents. **

That's not only a Freudian truth.

And Sweden a good model? Well, I doubt that.

Obe wrote:

Perhaps absolute, new world order Capitalism will solve all
the insidiousness, and the word is out on that. **

If so, then - according to Hegel's Dialektik - it will have to be a
Synthesis of the Thesis capitalism (especially successful
in the 19th century) and the Antithesis communism (especially
successful in the 20th century). What can that kind of Synthesis be? Merely
something like globalism or its contrary: localism / regionalism which
will lead to the pre-historical times resembling post-historical
times (cp. my thread: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY [**|**]).

Obe wrote:

I feel my answer to Your query may be sort of disjointed, in
fact i know it is, but the reason for it is, that the issues and problems
parleyed are not reducible to formulas of only a few variables. This
country, is, now, i feel, one of the least understood social systems
on earth, minus Great Britain, with which it has a historically close
relationship. **

And before U.K. and U.S. came together (during the First World War),
there was a deeply realtionship between Germany and U.S.

Obe wrote:

The EU, adopting many of the same platforms, is far more sensitive
to the inherent changes of cultural and ethnographic effects, but cross
cultural dynamics, related to the flow of peoples and capital, make
it not only a US situation.

It will turn out well in the end, but there will be cataclysms of
major proportions, as the changes create ripple effects, cumulatively
effecting the world over. **

Maybe it will turn out well in the end, but can we be sure?

Obe wrote:

The US has enjoyed 50+ yeas of unparalleled post world war
economic superiority, and the sad fact is, a well fed middle class,
taking such prosperity pretty much for granted, would not stand a chance
of survival, was it not for the international corporations sustaining,
as of yet a positive cash flow toward the United States, and Great Britain
and the EU.

The new world order is as ideologically necessary in today's world,
as Marxism seemed to fit the bill, prior to the great ideological showdown,
which brought in the World War. In that time, it appeared, as if Capitalism
was a dying institution. History proved itself otherwise, and it is
to Communism that distinction went to. It was a Hundred Years' War,
of ideological conflict, and what we are seeing and feeling in the world
today, are the sparks shooting out of the dying embers of ideology.
This is what the end of history signifies, there are no credible cognitive
markers, which can be used, as tools, to unearth, 'The Truth' of what
the basic formula requires. Pragmatism has definitely won out worldwide
over all forms of idealism, excepting art. **

Idealism, right. And idealism is mostly German idealism. If the new
world order is really as ideologically necessary in today's
world, then this new world order can merely be - llike I said -
something like globalism or its contrary: localism / regionalism, which
will lead to the pre-historical times resembling post-historical
times (cp. my thread: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY [**|**]).

What you are calling the Hundred Years War, of
ideological conflict, is the epoch where egalitarianism (socialism,
communism etc.) were stronger that liberalism (capitalism etc.) bcause
it had undercut and threatened all liberalistic (capitalistic) systems.
But now we are living in a different epoch: capitalism is weak, communism
is not as strong as in the last epoch, and globalism - as the Synthesis
of capitalism and communism (cp. Hegel's Dialektik) - is the strongest.
That means that both capitalism and communism still exist, but as a mix
in which capitalism dominates as a communism.

Referring to the fact that globalism is a Synthesis of capitalism (Thesis)
and communism (Antithesis) the end of history will be reached when
this Synthesis has changed to such a New Thesis whithout any historical
existence. Merely something like globalism or its contrary: localism /
regionalism, which will lead to the pre-historical times resembling
post-historical times (cp. my thread: Thinking about the END OF
HISTORY [**|**]).

Obe wrote:

So as bad as things are in the Western World, it is more stable
then at anytime in the history of the world, and as new emerging markets
get progressively involved in a new world trade, we, who appear in a
decline, have to grin and bear it, hoping for a turn for the better.

That much for the social/economic markers.
It would be preposterous, and naive of me to not notice the psychosocial
objects left hanging, as the genius of utilitarianism is always to point
to the futility of such an abstract yet naive way to describe a situation,
where it can just as equally be pointed out, that it is not the 'system's
fault but those singular individuals' who decide to construe a point
of view, predicated on the simple
notion of directing fault outside their orbit of reference.

Art has retained this freedom of expression, an absolute reminder
that the 2nd amendment is alive and well, but there are a lot of starving
, disheartened artists out there, with or without a portfolio, to whom
life as art, best describes their being, and soul. **

The current art shows also what globalism means (see above), so the
current art is also enbedded in both capitalisms and communism, in Thesis
and Antithesis of the Synthesis globalism. Nobody else than Oswald A.
G. Spengler has so consequently and arrestingly shown how art works as
a semiotic and/or linguistic indicator for historical phases of a culture
/ civilisation.

According to Schopenhauer in the face of the will as Kants
Ding an sich (thing in itself) human beings are
almost powerless, but amongst them the genies of the art, especially of
the music, are able to conceive and represent the eternal ideas.

Obe wrote:

Thank you, Obe.

Obe wrote:

Well, i will try. However, i have an inkling, that You guys
have a pretty good idea of the U.S. Situation .... **

Not all, some (including me) know quite enough about the U.S. situation.
But the rulers in Europe don't inform their people, and most
of the Europeans are not interested, because and although they are not
informed by their governments.

Obe wrote:

..., as it's fairly obvious from world reporting on the late
great recession, the plight of returning veterans who find themselves
having to wait inordinately for referrals to specialists to treat their
maladies, of gi's living on the streets near VA hospitals, strung out
on dope, not able to return to civilian life. Other things: the air
here is not at all like the sixties, to give You an example, when i
came to live here, gasoline cost per gallon was 15 cents, now it's almost
$5. A pack of cigs was 25c, now it's $5. First class stamps were 4c
now they are 50c. The same with rents and food.

The suicide rate in the military is very much larger then before,
and there is a foreboding of valuelessness as purchase price of products
rise, along with the cost of living.

Don't get me wrong, only segments of the populations feel this downward
trend, while the upper middle class has no apparent problems with any
of it. **

These segments of the population are not a few, because,
depending on the respectively definition of the word classes,
the percentage of the population of both the middle and the lower
class is generally more than 99%, and the percentage of the population
of the middle class is generally about 50%, that of the upper
middle class generally about 5%, so that generally about 94-99% of
the U.S. population may be affected. Because of the fact that some people
are more contended than other people, the percentage of discontended people
is - for eaxmple - about 47-50%.

Obe wrote:

As far as my take on living in the USA, it is anchored in a
sense of high resiliency of the population, much like Henry Miller describes
it in his novel "air conditioned nightmare. Still, people are able
to live the mix,of ghettos and areas of great wealth coexisting in a
geographical no man's land, and everybody tries to live under the idea
of a 'classless' society. In a sense it is classless, and that too,
is a catch 22, where that idea, also suffers when economic markers lower
the bar, where social interactions at times painfully drag on the cheering
thoughts of personal freedoms.

The collapse is nought, i don't quite see that, but what i see, is
more of the same, the hidden downtrodden, the homeless ghettos, the
high rate of crime, etc., it implies a societal chaos, that the US population
can absorb.

Recently, there has been a sharp upsurge of child molestation among
educators, and this is a veery sign of moral decay.

The way i see it, if it wasn't for the laxity of morality, (after
all isn't Sweden a good model for it?), dissent and societal unhappiness
would not have the safety valve of releasing at least on Freudian truth,
of civilization's discontents. **

That's not only a Freudian truth.

And Sweden a good model? Well, I doubt that.

Obe wrote:

Perhaps absolute, new world order Capitalism will solve all
the insidiousness, and the word is out on that. **

If so, then - according to Hegel's Dialektik - it will have to be a
Synthesis of the Thesis capitalism (especially successful
in the 19th century) and the Antithesis communism (especially
successful in the 20th century). What can that kind of Synthesis be? Merely
something like globalism or its contrary: localism / regionalism which
will lead to the pre-historical times resembling post-historical
times (cp. my thread: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY [**|**]).

Obe wrote:

I feel my answer to Your query may be sort of disjointed, in
fact i know it is, but the reason for it is, that the issues and problems
parleyed are not reducible to formulas of only a few variables. This
country, is, now, i feel, one of the least understood social systems
on earth, minus Great Britain, with which it has a historically close
relationship. **

And before U.K. and U.S. came together (during the First World War),
there was a deeply relationship between Germany and U.S..

Obe wrote:

The EU, adopting many of the same platforms, is far more sensitive
to the inherent changes of cultural and ethnographic effects, but cross
cultural dynamics, related to the flow of peoples and capital, make
it not only a US situation.

It will turn out well in the end, but there will be cataclysms of
major proportions, as the changes create ripple effects, cumulatively
effecting the world over. **

Maybe it will turn out well in the end, but can we be sure?

Obe wrote:

The US has enjoyed 50+ yeas of unparalleled post world war
economic superiority, and the sad fact is, a well fed middle class,
taking such prosperity pretty much for granted, would not stand a chance
of survival, was it not for the international corporations sustaining,
as of yet a positive cash flow toward the United States, and Great Britain
and the EU.

The new world order is as ideologically necessary in today's world,
as Marxism seemed to fit the bill, prior to the great ideological showdown,
which brought in the World War. In that time, it appeared, as if Capitalism
was a dying institution. History proved itself otherwise, and it is
to Communism that distinction went to. It was a Hundred Years' War,
of ideological conflict, and what we are seeing and feeling in the world
today, are the sparks shooting out of the dying embers of ideology.
This is what the end of history signifies, there are no credible cognitive
markers, which can be used, as tools, to unearth, 'The Truth' of what
the basic formula requires. Pragmatism has definitely won out worldwide
over all forms of idealism, excepting art. **

Idealism, right. And idealism is mostly German idealism. If the new
world order is really as ideologically necessary in today's
world, then this new world order can merely be - llike I said -
something like globalism or its contrary: localism / regionalism, which
will lead to the pre-historical times resembling post-historical
times (cp. my thread: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY [**|**]).

What you are calling the Hundred Years War, of
ideological conflict, is the epoch where egalitarianism (socialism,
communism etc.) were stronger than liberalism (capitalism etc.) because
it had undercut and threatened all liberalistic (capitalistic) systems.
But now we are living in a different epoch: capitalism is weak, communism
is not as strong as in the last epoch, and globalism - as the Synthesis
of capitalism and communism (cp. Hegel's Dialektik) - is the strongest.
That means that both capitalism and communism still exist, but as a mix
in which capitalism dominates as a communism.

Referring to the fact that globalism is a Synthesis of capitalism (Thesis)
and communism (Antithesis) the end of history will be reached when
this Synthesis has changed to such a New Thesis whithout any historical
existence. Merely something like globalism or its contrary: localism /
regionalism, which will lead to the pre-historical times resembling
post-historical times (cp. my thread: Thinking about the END OF
HISTORY [**|**]).

Obe wrote:

So as bad as things are in the Western World, it is more stable
then at anytime in the history of the world, and as new emerging markets
get progressively involved in a new world trade, we, who appear in a
decline, have to grin and bear it, hoping for a turn for the better.

That much for the social/economic markers.
It would be preposterous, and naive of me to not notice the psychosocial
objects left hanging, as the genius of utilitarianism is always to point
to the futility of such an abstract yet naive way to describe a situation,
where it can just as equally be pointed out, that it is not the 'system's
fault but those singular individuals' who decide to construe a point
of view, predicated on the simple
notion of directing fault outside their orbit of reference.

Art has retained this freedom of expression, an absolute reminder
that the 2nd amendment is alive and well, but there are a lot of starving
, disheartened artists out there, with or without a portfolio, to whom
life as art, best describes their being, and soul. **

The current art shows also what globalism means (see above), so the
current art is also enbedded in both capitalisms and communism, in Thesis
and Antithesis of the Synthesis globalism. Nobody else than Oswald A.
G. Spengler has so consequently and arrestingly shown how art works as
a semiotic and/or linguistic indicator for historical phases of a culture
/ civilisation.

According to Schopenhauer in the face of the will as Kants
Ding an sich (thing in itself) human beings are
almost powerless, but amongst them the genies of the art, especially of
the music, are able to conceive and represent the eternal ideas.

1365

Ierrellus wrote:

That's - of course - a good question, and I answer it with: in the
future machines will probably know »relative« free will.

The will, how Schopenhauer defiend it (as Kant's Ding an sich
- thing in itself), is a free will, but not the will of the
human beings because human beings depend on the will. Since God has been
murdered - at the end of the 18th century - his free will have also been
murdered. Since then human beings pride themselves to be like God, to
have a free will, but that is a false conclusion.

1366

James S. Saint wrote:

Arminius wrote:

What would you do, if an android hires andriods but not you
because you are a risk and in the way?« ****

Ah, and by whom or what exactly?

1367

Phoneutria wrote:

A »heathen« may draw his motivation for a good conduct
in honoring his ancestry ....
To not engage in actions that would shame his name.
To love his parents and grandparents and those that came before so that
he wishes to make them proud.
To have self pride and self love from belonging to this lineage/culture,
and to wish to preserve it.

That is what a heathen should do, yes.

Actually it is what all human beings should do, but nihilistic human
beings are not able to do.

So the question is not only heathendom versus monotheism, but
also heathendom versus nihilism.

1368

Interest (=> will) is the most important
thing (perhaps it is really Kant's Ding an sich - thing
in itself). A good example is the sexual selection that
I would prefer to call reproductive interests when it comes to
get ressources (including offspring / children), namely either by (a)
dominance or by (b) will to appeal.
If a female can't reproduce herself and doesn't want a male or children,
because she is kidded - for example - by feminism or other nihilisms,
then she is no longer part of the evolution. End.

Who benefits from that?

1369

James S. Saint wrote:

Despite all of the books on the subject, that actually translates
as »Thing as such«. **

Thank you, James.

1370

Should we say heathendom / monotheism / nihilism versus
... (put in the right word) ...?

Would
you replace the other android by one or more androids or by one or more humans?
And if the former, then by what? And if the latter, then by whom?

You
can build an android and replace the other android by one or more androids or
by one or more humans.

James S. Saint wrote:

I
thought Ierrellus meant his question by referring to his statement that machines
cannot be self aware in the human sense of self-awareness:

Ierrellus
wrote:

Others have hinted at the same thing--machines
cannot be self aware in the human sense of self-awareness. This does not indicate
that I see all forms of awareness as human. ....Can machines experience free
will? **

Ierrellus
wrote:

Self-awareness,
experience, know? What would you answer?

1374

Free
will is not what human beings or other living beings have, because they
are part of the evolution. For example: As a human you can't decide your origin,
your genetic program, your birth, your death. And if you can't decide about the
most important phenomenons of your life, then you have no free will.

Market propagandists say that you can decide about your way of life by
choosing or selecting articles, consumer goods, products, so that you may think
you have a free will, but what you have is merely a relative
free will. Political propagandists say that you can decide about your way
of life by choosing or selecting politicians, their parties (homonym! ), their
ideologies (modern religions), so that you may think you have a free will,
but what you have is merely a relative free will. They say that you
can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting your sex, gender, so
that you may think you have a free will, but what you have is merely
a relative free will. You can merely choose in a relative way. God,
the nature, or Kants Ding an sich (thing as such,
thing in itself) may have or be a free will, but humans
don't know who or what they really are and have killed them, either absolutely
(God) or partly (nature, Ding an sich).

Human beings have no free will.

James
S. Saint wrote:

It
is derived from begreifen - as the verb in the infinitive form -,
and begreifen means understand, comprehend,
conceive, recognise. Ein begriffener Gott ist kein
Gott means an understood God is no God.

1376

James
S. Saint wrote:

The determinist and the religionist
are the same person. The priest and the scientist are the same person. **

Yes,
that is what I have been saying for so long too.

James
S. Saint wrote:

By
attending to the actual fundamental cause of all things, one has a greater number
of choices (from which they can succeed) than otherwise. Thus they say that God
yields more free-will. The more Man knows of the cause of all things, the greater
he becomes at accomplishing anything he chooses. Since he is basically insane,
he chooses to enhance his insanity, making it stronger and unstoppable, through
technological tools.So we have the priests, the scientists, and with them
we have the increase of illusions and insanity, and at last the products of that
all: a high "human civilisation" with its technologie / technique, amongst
other things more and more machines and the high probability that they will replace
all human beings. **

If one had said when human history started that all humans will be replaced
by machines one day, no one would and could have understood or even believed
that. But the most human beings have been knowing that since the first
well-functioning steam-engine was built and the so called industrial
revolution began. And what happened, happens, and will happen? The
increasing replacement of human beings by machines.

Okay,
so Ill see you in Wien. Hallo Wien means hello Vienna.

Probably we can't overcome monotheism because it exists and - especially
- because we know that it exists. So we cant forget it or it will
take a very long time to forget it. A very long time, although not als
long as it takes to forget nihilism and especially the meaning of nihilism.

1382

Laughing
Man wrote:

Current world population is seven billion
people and growing.

When the collapse of technological industrial society
begins I imagine we will see about six billion people dead after all is said and
done.

In 1802 the world reached a population of one billion milestone.
After the collapse of technological industrial society human global population
will probably normalize within natural equilibrium around a billion or less.

Six
billion people dead upon the collapse of technological industrial society.....that's
a lot of dead people. I don't think we have enough coffins to put them in.

Kriswest
wrote:

Ierrellus
wrote:

Kriswest wrote:

Ierrellus,
do you really not know what Kriswest means?

James
S. Saint wrote:

What brings the greatest freedom ever
achieved is, in effect, going through monotheism, beyond it. If you were to totally
destroy it, it would merely come back again, and probably with a vengeance.

The
actual problem with monotheism that inhibits freedom is the presumption of socialism
= reaching for too much control over too much and too many. What yields more power,
leads to too much power. That is the state that Man finds himself in over and
over.

By »working through monotheism«, one discovers cooperative
distribution of wealth of power. At that point, there is never too much power
because the wealth is never concentrated. The concentration of the wealth is the
foundation of »too much«. **

But
as we know the monotheisms are not equal. One (Christianity) is weak, the others
are strong.

James S. Saint wrote:

Heathenism
merely breaks up power into chaos, reducing the total power and thus allowing
for certain freedoms if there had been too much, but also taking away productive
power and thus reducing opportunities and thus reducing freedoms. So yes, certain
freedoms would return through heathenism. But certain freedoms would also be removed.

Much
like Science, the real answers are beyond the current mindset. Merely removing
the current accomplishes nothing but temporary chaos while a different regime
takes over and reestablishes the same ole story but with new weapons added to
ensure that it cannot be defeated again.

Thus in the long run, heathenism
brings less freedom, not more because what didn't completely kill it, made it
stronger. **

Heathendom
will bring freedom back only then, if monotheism is completely deleted from the
memory. So heathendom has to wait.

1384

Where
are all the posts of the revolting functionaries of the current
dictatorship now? Kriswest's sentence is not politically correct. But who
cares? No one because Kriswest is a female. So her sentence is politically correct.
But if a male had said that, he would have been mauled by the functionaries
of the current dictatorship. That's remarkable, isn't it?

Ierrellus
wrote:

Aha, ..., but now your question is answered.

1387

James, would you say that your theory is a more holistic
or a more reductionistic one?

1388

Do
you know both Huntington and Fukuyama?

According to Huntington history
will not end in the next time because there will be a clash of civilisations (cultures);
according to Fukuyama history will end because the occidental civilisation (culture)
has won.

1389

James
S. Saint wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»James,
would you say that your theory is more holistic or more reductionistic?«
****

That's
what I thought. But my question was not a YES/NO-question, but a WHETHER-question.

James
S. Saint wrote:

Actually, I have a little trouble discerning
what people mean when they use those terms.

And my »theory«
is more than merely »a theory«. RM:AO is first an ontology that leaves
no option but to be true (feel free to take that as a challenge). But more than
that, it happens to necessarily include ALL fields of science, religion, governance,
psychology, economics, or whatever. If it is real, RM:AO covers it. In that sense,
it can be said to be »holy« (from being »whole« and flawless).
But is that really what they mean when they say,»holistic«?

Yes,
it deals with »the whole« as well as any portion, so technically,
it is »holistic«. But it also explains the inner details of the greater
existence, so in that sense, it is »reductionistic«.

I
would describe your theory or ontology in a similar way.

Only
Humean wrote:

It's worth noting that Fukuyama has abandoned
and rejected his position since. **

Yes,
I heard or read about it. And I heard or read too that Huntington partly
abandoned his postion some years before his death, but I don't know whether it
is true or not.

Only Humean wrote:

I don't see
China as moving towards liberal democracy, politically or culturally. While they're
growing in power, history is alive and well. In addition (related to your other
thread) mechanisation/posthumanism is maybe a longer term challenge that will
keep history alive. History will always be interesting while there is change and
uncertainty. I think there will most likely always be change and uncertainty.
**

Yes, but change and uncertainty are also characteristic for devolopment
in general (including evolution and history), thus not only
for history. So change and uncertainty are useless when it comes
to answer the question whether history ends or not.

I also think that there will most likely always be change
and uncertainty because there will most likely always be development. So I think
there will be change and uncertainty as long as there will be development.

Arminius
wrote:

I define »history« as a »cultural
evolution«. All »archivable artifacts« belong to history.
So e.g. padded dinosaurs in a museum belong to history because they are archived
artifacts, although dinosaurs themselves belong to eveolution-without-history
because they did not archive artifacts, they did not have any history.
Even human beings had not had any history for the most time of their existence.
But they have been having story (here »story« means only »telling
story«, »told story«, etc.) since they began to speak. So »story«
as a »oral tradition« (tale and so on) does not belong to history.

Do you agree with that definition? If yes, then we can think about the
»Eloi« as an example for humans without history in the future,
can't we? The question in this thread is not, whether humans will have
story in their future or not, but the question in this thread is, whether
humans will have history in their future or not.

Why am I saying
that? Because we should not confuse history with any development, for example
with the natural development or with the natural evolution. History is cultural
evolution. Archivable artifacts belong to history, and history belongs to evolution,
and evolution belongs to development in nature. So history is embedded in evolution
and in natural development, while evolution is only embedded in natural development.
All events are based on natural (physico-chemical) development. Evolution is based
on natural (physico-chemical) development. History is based on natural (physico-chemical)
development and on (biological) evolution, history is defined as a cultural
evolution. Story - as I define it (cp. above) - is also defined as a cultural
evolution, but in contrast to history story contains no archivable artifact (except
all kinds of an engineered story like an audiotape and so on). Story in this text
and context means merely oral tales or oral narratives - not more.

So
if we are asking in this thread, whether history ended or not, ends or
not, will end or will not, then we are always asking, whether cultural evolution
ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, whether the relation between
human beings and archivable artifacts ended or not, ends or not, will end
or will not.

The house of change:

History is merely the roof of the house of change.

Arminius
wrote:

»The end of history means the end
of all great narratives, of all great stories, of all historical existence
(Ernst Nolte), of all culture, of all great wars, and so on.« ****

End of history or not, end of historical existence or not - thats
the question of this thread. ****

So:
History is always part of the evolution and of the general development, and evolution
is always part of the general development. Development can, but don't has to be
evolutuion and history, and evolution can, but don't has to be history.

1391

It depends on the philosophy, especially the metaphysics and its ontology,
or the theory whether willingness differs live-matter from non-live matter
or not. For example: according to Schopenhauer the will is Kants
Ding an sich (thing as such, thing in itself).

Only Humean, is it right that you have studied linguistics? If so, then
you probably know the meaning of hyperonym (superordination)
and hyponym (subordination). My
interpetation of change, development, evolution,
and history in their structural relations to each other is
the following one:

1) Change is the hyperonym of the hyponyms
development, evolution and history.
1,1) Development is a hyponym of the hyperonym
change and the hyperonym of the hyponyms evolution
and history.
1,1,1) Evolution is a hyponym of the hyperonyms
change and development and the hyperonym
of the hyponym history.
1,1,1,1) History is merely a hyponym, namely
of the hyperonyms change, development and evolution.

That consequently means: if history ends, evolution or development or
even change do not have to end simultaneously; and if evolution ends,
history ends simultaneously, but development and change do not have to
end simultaneously; and if development ends, evolution and history end
simultaneously, but change does not have to end simultaneously. So in
that relation merely change is independent. Development depends only on
change. Evolution depends on change and development. History is the most
dependent, because it depends on change, development, and evolution.

You may compare (1) change with our universe in time, (1,1) development
with our sun, our planet, or our moon ... etc., (1,1,1) evolution with
a living being (for example an alga, or a snake, or a human being without
history ... etc., and (1,1,1,1) history with a - of course - historical
human being.

They all belong to 1 (change), and merely historical human
beings belong to 1,1,1,1 (history).

1393

Laughing
Man wrote:

I'm a firm believer in global peak oil and
energy. It's only a matter of time until the wheels spin off of technological
industrial society.

When this happens never again will humanity experience
such a technological industrial society ever again.

We will be forced
into what I like to describe as permanent 18th century living standards.
**

Yes,
okay, but the cause does not have to be a global peak oil or other sources of
energy.

1394

I
have saved two children - with no biological imperative.

1395

If
the heathendom wants to be more successful, it has to become political in order
to eliminate the monotheistic memory.

But probably it does not want to
be more successful, and probably it is the right decision because of the monotheistic
envy and revenge.

1396

I
think, heathendom will as long remain a small religious group of a minority as
monotheism remains in the memory.

According
to my theory, most of the laws of physics should not be called into
question, thus some of the laws of physics should be called into question.

1399

Fixed
Cross wrote:

ISIS is Taliban 2.0. A US-created force
to annoy Russia and Iran and keep the Middle East in chaos so that current UN/US
policies can not be challenged. At least everything points to this; their logistic
capacities, their technological skills and equipment, very notably the production
value and style of their videos (that's top of the line American craft, no other
nation produces that quality even in expensive tv productions), the name naturally
(The Egyptian pantheon being the subject of the dollar bill and the architecture
of DC) but most importantly, the powers that suffer most from this new violence.
If ISIS weren't created by the US, it would certainly be a fortunate coincidence.
The shiites are fucked, Assad is fucked, Putin is at the very least disturbed,
and the chances of muslims organizing in a somewhat rational manner is virtually
nil.

The western powers understand Islam all too well, much better than
muslims understand it. For starters, they understand that people with no education
except Mosque-education are the easiest people in the world to manipulate. It's
the easiest thing in the world to have them fight against their own interests,
or against the interests of anyone in their direct environment.

As long
as people believe in Allah they deserve to be enslaved. It's just sad for brighter
humans who live nearby them. **

I
agree.

The Dollar Empire is not as hermetically sealed as previous empires,
but it's still successful.

And please don't forget: Saudi Arabia is one
of the closest allies of the US.

1400

Tor!
- Goal!

I am watching football (soccer) at the moment (Spain vs. Chile).
Are you also interested in that, James?

Back to your questions:

Arminius
wrote:

My theory is that in our universe
bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.

The orbits of both moons around
their planets and the planets around their stars, and even the stars around their
galactic center clearly do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For
example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally
orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies that move around
bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move two-, but three-dimensionally.
They move spirally and thus also cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical
way. If something moves around a body or a point which does not move around another
body or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces, then (and
only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional. ****

Arminius
wrote:

My whole (natural and
cultural) theory is based on spiral-cyclic motions - almost all developments,
thus also evolution and history. ****

For
example: most of the laws of the quantum physics had been called into
question before it became apparent that much of quantum physics can not be wrong
because a dental drill and a cd player really work.

The four fundamental forces of nature should not be generally called
into question, but some of the laws of thermodynamics, or
the theory of the big bang and the theory of the inflation
of the universe should be called into question because there is
no absolute proof or evidence, but merely laboratory experiments, statistics,
modelling, and - of course - claims for them.
____________________________________________________________________

Affectance
and spiral-cyclicity are convertible and not contradictory.